IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/publus/v51y2021i4p513-536..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Explaining Intergovernmental Conflict in the COVID-19 Crisis: The United States, Canada, and Australia

Author

Listed:
  • André Lecours
  • Daniel Béland
  • Alan Fenna
  • Tracy Beck Fenwick
  • Mireille Paquet
  • Philip Rocco
  • Alex Waddan

Abstract

The Covid-19 pandemic produced more significant immediate intergovernmental conflict in the U.S. than in Australia and Canada. This article considers three variables for this cross-national divergence: presidentialism versus parliamentarism; vertical party integration; and strength of intergovernmental arrangements. We find that the U.S. presidential system, contrary to parliamentarism in Canada and Australia, provided an opportunity for a populist outsider skeptical of experts to win the presidency and pursue a personalized style that favored intergovernmental conflict in times of crisis. Then, the intergovernmental conflict-inducing effect of the Trump presidency during the pandemic was compounded by the vertical integration of political parties, which provided incentives for the President to criticize Democratic governors and vice-versa. Third, the virtual absence of any structure for intergovernmental relations in the United States meant that, unlike Australian states and Canadian provinces, American states struggled to get the federal government’s attention and publicly deplored its lack of leadership.

Suggested Citation

  • André Lecours & Daniel Béland & Alan Fenna & Tracy Beck Fenwick & Mireille Paquet & Philip Rocco & Alex Waddan, 2021. "Explaining Intergovernmental Conflict in the COVID-19 Crisis: The United States, Canada, and Australia," Publius: The Journal of Federalism, CSF Associates Inc., vol. 51(4), pages 513-536.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:publus:v:51:y:2021:i:4:p:513-536.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/publius/pjab010
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:publus:v:51:y:2021:i:4:p:513-536.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/publius .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.